'Electronica' is an antiquated 1990's marketing term for electronic music, much like 'Alternative' was a marketing term for rock, which has since been replaced by 'indie'. When I think of 'electronica', I think of more commercial electronic music. It just wouldn't feel right to invoke electronica on Aphex Twin or Squarepusher. 'Electronic music' is a timeless term that gives electronic musicians more respect and ties them to the larger history of electronic music, which dates back to the 1950's.

Electronic Music would also be more inclusive, because it would include early electronic music, like Stockhausen, Steve Reich, music concrete, the Theremin and other such awesomeness. Electro-Acoustic music (electronic music that uses live instruments) would also be covered by this term.

I'm not a purist or an overly protective electronic music fanboy, I'm just particular about music terminology. Don't even get me started on 'Classical Music'. (Classical music is a sub genre of concert music that ceased to exist hundred of years ago - think Mozart and Haydn.) Concert music, not classical. Electronic music, not electronica.

2 cents from a musician.

>> ^joedirt:

she is an idiot.
You can find even worse examples in the Torah or Bible. So this is retarded. Yes, life WAS different hundreds of years ago.



She addresses your criticism in this very video when she says that Muslims hold Mohammed as a timeless example of a moral person.

Even (most) Christians accept that violent Old Testament figures such as Joshua were a product of their times and specifically directed by God.

Your obvious enlightenment does not spread to the millions of people with faith in this world.

Ha! I recently had to spread the love of your Context post in a gigantic Facebook thread when I quoted some biblical rule about how to properly treat female slaves. A giant passage (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT, to be exact) with clear as day instructions, and of course they came at me with the "out of context/it was a different time" argument. I always find it funny that they can somehow claim that it is the timeless, infallible word of God while also claiming that the nonsense in the Old Testament were man's rules and don't apply anymore. Or that somehow the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything, who is all powerful and exists outside of time actually changed his damn mind about that crap.

Somewhat non sequitur, but I think is funny because I'm an argumentative, irritating, know-it-all douchebag, I also discovered Deuteronomy 23:1 recently. (ESV) "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." Sorry, Lance Armstrong! I hope you enjoy your inspirational Tour de France wins in hell!
>> ^Sagemind:
#11 - You took it out of contect!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Context-bible

Gotta love his clarity of vision. Before his time? His comedy is timeless - is that the same thing? It'll never age.

The Godfather? Great. 2001? Neat. The Shawshank Redemption? Timeless.

...Rosebud? psh

From Dr. Theophrastus Seuss' timeless classic "Fox in Socks":

Now wait
a minute
Mr. Socks Fox!

When a fox is
in the bottle where
the tweetle beetles battle
with their paddles
in a puddle on a
noodle-eating poodle.
THIS is what they call...

...a tweetle beetle
noodle poodle bottle
paddled muddled duddled
fuddled wuddled
fox in socks, sir!

Fox in socks,
our game us done, sir.
Thank you for
a lot of fun, sir

>> ^dbot2006:
The Graduate does not hold up well after all these years, it is a film that manages to not be timeless.


Just because -you- don't like a movie doesn't mean it doesn't hold up well. It just means you don't like it. Personally, I never did think it was a "great" movie, but it's no worse now than it was then.

Having been in both age groups represented in the movie, I'd say that it's still a reasonably accurate depiction of life. Nothing much has changed when it comes to personal interactions, older men and women still find younger ones attractive, and some will act on that attraction. And some people get pissy when dumped. :🤷:

>> ^dbot2006:
The Graduate does not hold up well after all these years, it is a film that manages to not be timeless.


Yeah. The graphics are total shit now.

>> ^dbot2006:
The Graduate does not hold up well after all these years, it is a film that manages to not be timeless.


What? Really? What movie are you watching?

Care to explain what you mean by this?

>> ^dbot2006:
The Graduate does not hold up well after all these years, it is a film that manages to not be timeless.


Seriously?

The Graduate does not hold up well after all these years, it is a film that manages to not be timeless.

i think the shots are warranted.
maybe not to you,but they are not directed towards you.
they are directed towards people who conflate scripture to justify their cause.
it is a timeless tactic and i find it deplorable.
if you are a follower of jesus than any act of wholesale slaughter is strictly forbidden.
but there are those who would obfuscate that fact by twisting scripture for their own ends.
maybe people such as these:
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/hunting-for-jesus-fundamentalism-miltary

if you are true follower of jesus.you would lay your life low before engaging in murder.this is not subject to interpretation.thou shall not kill..pretty simple.
now,there are many scriptures which allow for defending oneself and family and those scriptures can be interpreted differently,but i think you would agree that burning villages and mass killings of women and children would not be covered...yes?
it is called the "warriors dilemma".that is a very personal,and internal struggle and i am glad i no longer have to deal with that particular moral/spiritual dilemma.

I know that your point is that you dont need a supernatural being for moral guidance and I agree.

I was trying to illustrate that because it wasn't a god who wrote the bible, but rather people trying to better society, the type of morality you get from it is no different (in principal) than the alternative you are proposing.

What I'm suggesting is that the moral compass you are recommending is also invalid. If you base your morality on whats good for society, your morality will become outdated as soon as society changes. Why do you think the bible morality seems so crazy? Its not beacuse a god wrote it, its because society has changed and the men who wrote it failed to choose a timeless foundation for thier moral compass.

Think about it, if morality is based on the state of the society, and society is always changing, then historically, all men will appear immoral in the eyes of the historian. Any system you propose may seem "good" by todays standards, but what will your future peers think of it when they judge you just as you are judging those from the biblical era?

How can a moral system be good if it dooms every follower to immorality?

The Patrick Roy quote was damn clever. The Muhammad Ali one was beautiful and timeless. The rest were just silly.

Now THAT's a woman!

Those breasts are timeless.